NYT Opens the Door to the Humane Myth

Riddle me this: What's the difference between
a cow and someone on death row?

In the 12/14/90 New York Times editorial "There Is No
'Humane' Execution," we have an imperfect yet nevertheless baby step toward
acknowledgment of the HumaneMyth.

Let's summarize and deconstruct:

After a botched execution, Ohio adopted a single-drug formula to replace
the three-drug cocktail previously used to kill people. The most recent
execution, of Kenneth Biros, involved 30 minutes to find a vein for the
single-drug and "the execution only reinforced that any form of capital
punishment is legally suspect and morally wrong."

Regardless of how many drugs are used or if the person dies in one minute
or ten, "No matter how it is done, for the state to put someone to death is
inherently barbaric," says the NYT.

There are also the many innocent people who have been executed, though
that's an entirely different discussion.

The imperfection comes at the end of the editorial with: "Earlier this year,
New Mexico repealed its death penalty, joining 14 other states — and the
District of Columbia — that do not allow it. That is the way to eliminate
the inevitable problems with executions." This is amazing. We went from an
abolitionist angle--that executing people is morally wrong--to the death
penalty needs to be repealed to eliminate problems during the execution.

But I'm dedicated to eking out the positive message here, which is that
there is no way to take the life of another, no matter who they are or what
they've done, and call that humane. Three drugs, one drug, 30 minutes, one
minute, none of that matters. Of course, less suffering is always better
than more, but when you are taking someone's life, I'm pretty sure it's the
life-taking that's most important to them.

Riddle me this: What's the difference between a cow and someone on death
row? For one thing, the cow has not been convicted of some heinous crime.
The cow will be executed simply because she is a cow. And isn't it odd that
we would have such a difficult time, for decades, trying to figure out if
it's okay to kill someone who is a demonstrated threat to the community, yet
not only do we not think twice about killing a cow, who is no threat
whatsoever, but we actually create cows for the sole purpose of killing
them? Where's the moral objection on behalf of cows?

Finally, until we as a society develop a collective objection to killing
human animals who have committed atrocities, we are unlikely to develop such
an objection to killing nonhuman animals. But that doesn't mean we should
work toward abolishing the death penalty first, and then move to the case of
animals. The identical principle is at work--taking the life of another when
it isn't necessary is inherently unjust.

Fair Use Notice: This document may contain copyrighted material whose use has
not been specifically authorized by the copyright owners. We believe that this
not-for-profit, educational use on the Web constitutes a fair use of the
copyrighted material (as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law).
If you wish to use this copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go
beyond fair use, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.